Sciencescience

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 08:23 AM

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

Letter | Published: 24 July 2019

Raphael Neukom, Nathan Steiger, Juan José Gómez-Navarro, Jianghao Wang & Johannes P. Werner

Abstract
Earth’s climate history is often understood by breaking it down into constituent climatic epochs1. Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 years) these epochs, such as the Little Ice Age2,3,4, have been characterized as having occurred at the same time across extensive spatial scales5. Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence6, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

12 replies, 197 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era (Original post)
orson Jul 25 OP
oflguy Jul 25 #1
SatansSon666 Jul 25 #3
oflguy Jul 25 #6
SatansSon666 Jul 25 #8
nolidad Jul 25 #2
SatansSon666 Jul 25 #4
orson Jul 25 #5
oflguy Jul 25 #7
SatansSon666 Jul 25 #9
Carl Jul 25 #10
orson Jul 25 #11
Carl Jul 26 #12

Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 11:22 AM

1. You think you know stuff

But you don't know shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 12:02 PM

3. When can we expect your paper refuting their findings?

I'm sure you'll have it ready and submitted for peer-review soon.

Should be easy for an expert like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 02:16 PM

6. They are almost as dumb as you

You think writing papers makes you an expert

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 03:59 PM

8. Well, when you make a discovery, you are the first person to know.

Calling me dumb doesn't change the fact that you can't refute the research. You wouldn't even know how to begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 11:50 AM

2. When their flimsy house of cards starts tumbling down

The AGW'ers resort to really desperate tactics to keep the grant money rolling in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 12:03 PM

4. Again you show no knowledge of science.

You have never shown it any respect either.
But you don't mind enjoying the benefits of scientific progress.
There's a word for people like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 12:35 PM

5. Easy rider

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 02:17 PM

7. Don't worry, time will prove just how wrong you are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 04:00 PM

9. How wrong I am that nolidad sucks at science?

There is tons of evidence sitting right here in the science category.
Pay attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 08:37 PM

10. Sounds like a 10th grader trying to force as many big words into a sentence as they could to impress

a teacher.

The old baffle them with bullshit tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 25, 2019, 10:09 PM

11. The unknown redditor explains it.

"So, basically, in previous global events like the Little Ice Age, the the entire planet wasn’t affected, only parts of it. Vs climate change which is affecting the entire planet. Essentially confirming that temperature changes being observed are not just a “natural cycle” like skeptics love to claim."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 26, 2019, 05:19 AM

12. No one can possiby make that claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience